Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Sigh.. This world would be a much better place if Catholicism didn't exist. Hell, throw out all religions, please.

Even the skeptics believe that Eve has existed, or rather a woman named Eve that all women come from.
Scroll down to #16.

16. Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:

Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." [90] It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, [90,91,92,93] or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago. [90,91,92] This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported. [94] This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines.

Whoah!! If this isnt a kick in the little ones to all religious folks out there I don't know what is? Is it time that the "big story" is gonna change....again?

No, it's not a kick. I'm not surprised a Catholic is saying this. They change their story all the time.

"It's a religious story told for religious purposes." he said...........Mmmmm so the church does lie then?

Yes. The Church does lie.
The Bible doesn't.

reply to post by Garfee

I wish the church would come to a consensus on the subject before they start bleating on to everyone else about following them or perishing in a hell that now may or may not be a myth!

The "Church" consists of different people. People are fallible. The Bible isn't. Do the research yourself, stop seeking opinions of others. Or at the very least, find someone who matches scripture with scripture, and NOT scripture with OPINION - or you will find hypocrites who think God hates gays.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Fair enough! Still, if one story is, well, a story!? Surely it can't be long untill the whole book is admitted to!

Not religious at all. My beliefs are far beyond "a story". Fact is your best friend!

Cheers!

No, the man is wrong, obviously. If he doesn't even believe the book of Genesis, how then can this "Catholic" believe in God/Jesus? No, if only one thing was wrong with the Bible, the whole thing falls apart. Fast is my best friend, too. We share at least one thing in common.

reply to post by InfaRedMan
Yea, except, you know, it's his OPINION. The priest knows no more than Dawkins does, or than you do, or than I do. He just "thinks" it's a bull# story, because he wasn't there when it happened.

reply to post by Noinoi

A talking snake convinced a woman who in turn convinced a man (Both with no concept of right from wrong), to take a bite from some fruit that then gave them the ability to understand right from wrong. Man has to work the field, Woman has to suffer during childbirth, and the snake has to crawl around on it's belly. Therefore: evil exists. Right...

There's a word for what you're doing. I think it's called "derogatory".

The snake wasn't actually talking, animals can't talk. That's ridiculous. It was Satan speaking, whom appeared as a Serpent. They call him that in Revelation, as well. Man didn't just "receive" the knowledge of Good and Evil magically. They disobeyed, and then REALIZED that what they did was wrong. It had nothing to do with the fruit.
Man labors in the field, women labor with child, and the snake crawls on it's belly, because with that act of disobedience, it brought Sin upon the world. Evil has existed before then, it just didn't taint the world until then.

I am a Christian, and I believe in the body of truth that is the Holy Bible, but I am not a literalist, the bible is not literal, it is a collection of truths to live by, a book of allegories, a body of truth, much like say "Chicken Soup for the Soul" books are, just much older. The bible was nor "written" until about 200 AD, before that is was passed by mouth, and even when it was written down, it was written down by man, imperfect man. The Bible was then transcribed, and translated, losing a little here and there along the way. Much of the bible is not "written" by the words of Jesus or God, but rather by apostles, and theologians, who were human, and as such imperfect.

What shocks me about this is not that this has been said, but that the Vatican may be heading into the 19th century at least, hopefully one day they will catch up to the rest of society, but I would settle for the 20th century right now.

Originally posted by korathin

This is how atheism became acceptable in civilized society. Atheist psychopaths and sociopaths, infiltrated Religious and Political positions to ever so slightly steer society away from theism. Cardinal Pell ought to be excommunicated and ripped from his position.

Wow, my guess is that you are a far....FAR right wing evangelical.............., sorry, just can't come to call you a Christian, because though you seem to be trying to defend the Bible and Catholic church, you don't seem to be using Christian Values to do it. Just because someone does not believe as you do, does not make them psychopaths or sociopaths. Cardinal Pell aught to be commended for trying to bring the Catholic church into this millennium, and should be on the short list for Pope when the current one leaves this world.

The link provided in the O.P. is giving me a 404 error, but I am not clear what the big news is. When a Cardinal refers to any portion of the Bible as myth, it is arguable he is not using the word in the same sloppy way so many today use the word. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and the Fantastic Four are myths, just as Hercules (astoundingly similar to the myth of Jesus only at least a thousand years older), Prometheus, and Sisyphus are myths. The equation of myths with falsehood is a much more modern bastardization of the word. It is, quite simply, irrelevant whether Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Jesus, Hercules, Prometheus, and Sisyphus are "real" as in historical figures. This is not the point to their mythology.

Mythology, particularly the monomyth which are accounts of a hero's journey, are tales told intended to offer some sort of life lesson. It is reasonably argued that the consequence of being bitten by a radioactive spider will not be superhuman strength with powers that simulate a spider. In this sense we can argue that Spiderman is a fiction, but so is Gone With the Wind which is not a myth. What distinguishes the two is the structure of the hero's journey of the myth.

Further, while it is reasonably argued that truism can be found in Gone With the Wind, there are always truths found in myth. "With great power comes great responsibility" is true and is the central keystone of the Spiderman myth. Just because Spiderman is a myth this does not make "With great power comes great responsibility" a falsehood. The same could be said about Genesis and the Adam and Eve myth which also has similarities to other myths, including the myth of Prometheus who is linked with Pandora. Prometheus is either seen as the savior hero who brought fire and other knowledge of the gods to humanity, or as the plague of humanity whose reckless actions brought the wrath of the gods upon humanity. Pandora is known for opening up a box which contained, not just evil which can be undone, but also knowledge that was good.. It was the evil that cannot be undone that compelled her to close the box before all the knowledge was let loose, so to this day, as the myth goes, hope remains within the box.

I would argue that the "Fall from Grace" interpretation of Adam and Eve is a perplexing misinterpretation of that myth. It is told that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's mandate that neither eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. However, it is logical to argue that because the Garden of Eden was a place where only good existed - at least to the point where Satan could enter the Garden in the form of serpent, but could not enter as evil incarnate - by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, both Adam and Evil had to leave the Garden so that they may know evil.

Further, both ate from the fruit because they wanted to know what God knows, and this is arguably a hero's myth and their journey began upon the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and that the truth in this myth is that it reflects our own journey here on Earth. That journey is arguably finding a way to align our knowledge of good, with our knowledge of evil just as God does. That our journey is to become like God so that we can return home. This is what Joseph Campbell would call The Power of the Myth

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
As Dawkins suggested, it kind of cancels out original sin... and to personally add to that, the subsequent lineage within the Bible. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, neither did their descendants.. which basically means most of the bible is crap. What of all the other characters? My guess is that they are likely crap too!

IRM

The wife and I had a child that lived only a month. It was after the funeral that my wife realized our baby had not been baptized. She slowly started to freak out because, without baptism to wash away the original sin, our baby HAD to have gone to hell. I took my wife to a priest who explained that the idea of original sin is no more, and that baptism is merely to welcome people into christianity. I've always thought it was a bunch of BS anyway.

reply to post by Lionhearte

The snake wasn't actually talking, animals can't talk. That's ridiculous. It was Satan speaking, whom appeared as a Serpent. They call him that in Revelation, as well.

Genesis 3 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

For the sake of a self contained book, the serpent talks.

Man didn't just "receive" the knowledge of Good and Evil magically. They disobeyed, and then REALIZED that what they did was wrong. It had nothing to do with the fruit.

4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. 8

The implications are that BEFORE eating the fruit, they had no understanding of good and evil (aka right or wrong).
The serpent explained that once they ate it, they would become like God and understand good and evil, because God understood good and evil.

Genesis excerpts (Source).

reply to post by CaptainBeno


If Adam and Eve were "created" then why do they have belly buttons in all the pictures? Was that the creators version of the Pillsbury doe boy poke and laugh?

Originally posted by paradox
Or not everyone is stupid and takes a fairy tale as word for word fact?

Occam's razor would seem to side with me on that one.

Oh the beauty of having a brain and being able to use it!

edit on 4-10-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

No I don't.

And if you have a brain use it. This is not a changing of church teaching, this is one man saying he believes something other than official church teachings.

Scientifically speaking Adam and Eve did exist, whether you choose to believe the biblical account or not is up to you.

As was mentioned this completely invalidates much of Catholocism, the Catholic church I am sure will issue a statement against what the Cardinal said. He should be ex-communicated.

Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Catholic church, in fact I despise the Catholic church.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Can you show me the photographs of Adam and Eve so I can see their bellybuttons? Thanks.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Brilliant!!

reply to post by jiggerj


Original Sin is very much a part of Catholic dogma, why that priest said otherwise I do not know.

www.vatican.va...

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by paradox
Or not everyone is stupid and takes a fairy tale as word for word fact?

Occam's razor would seem to side with me on that one.

Oh the beauty of having a brain and being able to use it!

edit on 4-10-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

No I don't.

And if you have a brain use it. This is not a changing of church teaching, this is one man saying he believes something other than official church teachings.

Scientifically speaking Adam and Eve did exist, whether you choose to believe the biblical account or not is up to you.

As was mentioned this completely invalidates much of Catholocism, the Catholic church I am sure will issue a statement against what the Cardinal said. He should be ex-communicated.

Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Catholic church, in fact I despise the Catholic church.

This guy is a cardinal - aside from the pop he is as official as it gets.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Can you show me the photographs of Adam and Eve so I can see their bellybuttons? Thanks.

Go to yahoo or google and type in adam and eve and click pictures.

Adam and Eve has got to be true since we exist.
And Jesus was very real. Ask any BA Christian

Lilith was the first women mentioned in the bible, not Eve. Her story is left out of the Christian version but is still alive in Jewish teachings.

To the poster who believes it has been scientifically proven that we all descended from one women, sorry man but you have been fooled.

I have never been able to think of Pell as a Christian, in any sense of the word.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
I have never been able to think of Pell as a Christian, in any sense of the word.

I'm yet to meet a single christian who behaves like a 'christian' and even if I was lucky enough to find two, if I locked them in a room together they would disagree with eachother.

Edit: I am wrong - they would prbably stop to agree that I am a huge sinner and then go back to praying for eachother to see the other's light.

reply to post by Garfee

I know many Christians who are in agreement.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Garfee

 

I know many Christians who are in agreement.

I bet they all have different interpretations on at least one thing in the bible.